[vector]

[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=412]

[TheRealVille]

Coal has never been mined or used in a more environmentally responsible way than it is today. All that has changed is that we have an administration that has declared war on the coal industry. You are just one of Obama's foot soldiers. You support Obama, so you are against coal.

Study: Reclaimed sites still toxic

You often hear defenders of mountaintop mining say, sure, active mining looks bad, but the environmental disturbance is only temporary.

The damage to water is not temporary, however, according to a new study by Duke University that was published in the peer-reviewed online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A team of researchers analyzed water samples from 23 sites along the Upper Mud River and its tributaries in West Virginia.

This was a good place to study the effects of surface mining because there are few homes, farms or underground mines to affect water quality.

And there are various stages of surface mining, from areas that are currently being stripped to sites that have been reclaimed for decades.

The analysis found that salinity and concentrations of trace elements, including selenium which is toxic to fish, increased in direct proportion to the cumulative amount of surface mining in the watershed.

Also, mines reclaimed almost 20 years ago continue to release effluents with salinity levels similar to active mines in the region.

The researchers tested conductivity, which measures dissolved solids and ions. All conductivity measurements taken downstream of mine discharge outlets exceeded levels harmful to aquatic life. At the two sampling sites upstream of any mines, conductivity levels were within an acceptable range.

The team also observed fish that had deformities consistent with selenium poisoning. In an intact aquatic system, the deformed fish would have become prey to healthier fish. So, we're talking about sick streams.

Other studies have shown that water quality and aquatic ecosystems are harmed by mountaintop mining.

This only stands to reason. When mountaintops are blasted and scraped away to reach coal seams, tons of rock and dirt are dislodged and pushed into nearby valleys or hollows, burying natural waterways.

Rain percolating through the rubble picks up trace elements, heavy metals and ions that otherwise would have stayed buried.

The Duke study, which fills a gap in data about the cumulative effects on water of multiple mountaintop mines, found what one professor called an "incredibly strong" correlation.

The question of cumulative effects is central to a lawsuit in Kentucky. A hearing officer last year ruled that state regulators had failed to properly consider the cumulative effects of a surface mining permit issued to Cambrian Coal in Pike County.

The mine is discharging water into tributaries of the Russell Fork of the Big Sandy River that are already degraded by heavy metals and salts from earlier mining.

Energy and Environment Secretary Len Peters overruled the hearing officer, however, and granted the permit to the company whose president, James Booth, was one of the co-chairs of Gov. Steve Beshear's inaugural committee.

The issue is still being litigated.

Federal law has long required state regulators to consider the cumulative effects before issuing a new strip mine permit, but in Kentucky that consideration has been absent or, at best, cursory.

The cumulative effect of that kind of regulation has been both an increase in flooding and a decline in stream quality.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/12/21/20016...rylink=cpy

[tvtimeout]

I guess he felt he had to come back with something. The facts are exactly as I posted them. Romney could well have the best record and the finest credentials of any governor ever to run for the white house.

Wow...that is saying something right there.

[Hoot Gibson]

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/12/21/20016...rylink=cpy

It is pretty easy to find anti-coal stories in the media, RV. The article does not address changes in regulations and enforcement policies under the Obama administration. Not does it address the claim that I made, which I stand by. Coal has never been mined in a more environmentally responsible manner than it is being mined today. I guess when you say that you are not anti-coal, you must mean that you have nothing against it as long as it is left in its pristine, natural state.

[TheRealVille]

It is pretty easy to find anti-coal stories in the media, RV. The article does not address changes in regulations and enforcement policies under the Obama administration. Not does it address the claim that I made, which I stand by. Coal has never been mined in a more environmentally responsible manner than it is being mined today. I guess when you say that you are not anti-coal, you must mean that you have nothing against it as long as it is left in its pristine, natural state.

If you don't agree with the study, call Duke. If you have evidence contrary to the study, that the minerals aren't really in the streams, feel free to post it. I won't take your "opinion" that's its mined clean. The stream studies say otherwise. You "busted" out of the mining scene years ago, how do you come to your current knowledge?

[Hoot Gibson]

If you don't agree with the study, call Duke. If you have evidence contrary to the study, that the minerals aren't really in the streams, feel free to post it. I won't take your "opinion" that's its mined clean. The stream studies say otherwise. You "busted" out of the mining scene years ago, how do you come to your current knowledge?

The study makes no claim about whether coal is being mined cleaner today than in the past or not. Do you even read the stuff that you post? I don't think that I will ever be so out of touch with mining that I would claim that coal mined in the western U.S. has a high sulfur content. Nor will I ever make the mistake of believing that eliminating surface mining would just result in the same coal being deep mined by retrained surface coal miners. Facts seem to elude you on a pretty consistent basis on a staggering number of subjects.

[TheRealVille]

The study makes no claim about whether coal is being mined cleaner today than in the past or not. Do you even read the stuff that you post? I don't think that I will ever be so out of touch with mining that I would claim that coal mined in the western U.S. has a high sulfur content. Nor will I ever make the mistake of believing that eliminating surface mining would just result in the same coal being deep mined by retrained surface coal miners. Facts seem to elude you on a pretty consistent basis on a staggering number of subjects.

I didn't say it wasn't cleaner than in the past, just that it's still putting harmful junk in the water. What the study does say is that the junk is in there, though. If you will re-read my post, you will see that I said I wasn't sure on the high sulfur rate of western coal, and that I was only going by hearsay. You trying to dance? Still, are you saying the surveys are flawed, and that selenium and other junk isn't getting in our water supply at amounts high enough to cause companies to spend millions cleaning up their runoff?

[Hoot Gibson]

I didn't say it wasn't cleaner than in the past, just that it's still putting harmful junk in the water. You trying to dance?

You quoted my post and responded with an article that in no way contradicted my claim - which is the kind of thing that makes me doubt that you even read what you posted, let alone understood it. If your intent was not to refute my claim, then there was no need to quote it.

[TheRealVille]

You quoted my post and responded with an article that in no way contradicted my claim - which is the kind of thing that makes me doubt that you even read what you posted, let alone understood it. If your intent was not to refute my claim, then there was no need to quote it.

Still dancing? When are you going to dip?

[Hoot Gibson]

Still dancing? When are you going to dip?

Dancing - is that what you call the corrections that I have been making to your factually erroneous posts in this thread? :lmao:

You don't know the first thing about coal mining, yet you present yourself as some sort of expert and repeatedly you are proven wrong. Your claims that you are not anti-coal remind me of the days when you denied being an Obama supporter, despite being unable to cite any area of disagreement with him. Coal is just one more subject in a long list on which you have no credibility.

Obama is at war with coal and he is costing eastern Kentucky and neighboring areas thousands of jobs. You are at war with coal by supporting a president who is destroying the jobs of your neighbors.

[TheRealVille]

Dancing - is that what you call the corrections that I have been making to your factually erroneous posts in this thread? :lmao:

You don't know the first thing about coal mining, yet you present yourself as some sort of expert and repeatedly you are proven wrong. Your claims that you are not anti-coal remind me of the days when you denied being an Obama supporter, despite being unable to cite any area of disagreement with him. Coal is just one more subject in a long list on which you have no credibility.

Obama is at war with coal and he is costing eastern Kentucky and neighboring areas thousands of jobs. You are at war with coal by supporting a president who is destroying the jobs of your neighbors.

Still trying to dance around what the studys says? Forget about me Hooter, talk about what the study says about the stuff gettingin the water, and it's effects on the aquatic life, and our water supply. Talk about the higher cancer rate in the coalfields. Talk about the higher rates, the deeper you get into coal country. Fact is, you don't know squat about coal, hence your not being able to cut it as a mining engineer. Just deny the study as being factual, or not.

[Hoot Gibson]

Still trying to dance around what the studys says? Forget about me Hooter, talk about what the study says about the stuff gettingin the water, and it's effects on the aquatic life, and our water supply. Talk about the higher cancer rate in the coalfields. Talk about the higher rates, the deeper you get into coal country. Fact is, you don't know squat about coal, hence your not being able to cut it as a mining engineer. Just deny the study as being factual, or not.

The study is short on facts. It has a lot in common with you, RV. The only thing that you are not short on is personal attacks. You have been asked for numbers to support your claims and you have come up empty. Regardless of what thread you choose to participate in, you post without thinking and then when you are called out for your ignorance, you respond with attacks.

Not long ago, you were arguing that there were plenty of jobs available in the coal industry because you heard a company advertising on the radio for miners. Never mind the thousands of miners who have lost their jobs thanks to Obama. As long as one company is hiring a few miners, the industry is doing just fine in your world. When the last mine closes and you find yourself living in an area surrounded by impoverished neighbors, when you ask yourself how such a thing could happen, take a good look in the mirror.

Go ahead, RV. Tell us how you are not an Obama supporter, how you are not an atheist or an agnostic, and how you are not anti-coal. You have no credibility. People like you who actively support looters like Obama are doing great damage to this country.

[TheRealVille]

The study is short on facts. It has a lot in common with you, RV. The only thing that you are not short on is personal attacks. You have been asked for numbers to support your claims and you have come up empty. Regardless of what thread you choose to participate in, you post without thinking and then when you are called out for your ignorance, you respond with attacks.

Not long ago, you were arguing that there were plenty of jobs available in the coal industry because you heard a company advertising on the radio for miners. Never mind the thousands of miners who have lost their jobs thanks to Obama. As long as one company is hiring a few miners, the industry is doing just fine in your world. When the last mine closes and you find yourself living in an area surrounded by impoverished neighbors, when you ask yourself how such a thing could happen, take a good look in the mirror.

Go ahead, RV. Tell us how you are not an Obama supporter, how you are not an atheist or an agnostic, and how you are not anti-coal. You have no credibility. People like you who actively support looters like Obama are doing great damage to this country.

You going to get on topic, or not? Folks can see your idiocies showing Hoot. Talk about the study, not me. Talk about the questions I've asked, not me. I will later in the year name two names that will show that I know you don't know shit about coal, and mining engineering, but I will save that knowledge for later. Remember Hooter, I know who you are, well at least, I know people that know who you are.

[Hoot Gibson]

You going to get on topic, or not? Folks can see your idiocies showing Hoot. Talk about the study, not me. Talk about the questions I've asked, not me. I will later in the year name two names that will show that I know you don't know shit about coal, and mining engineering, but I will save that knowledge for later. Remember Hooter, I know who you are, well at least, I know people that know who you are.

Yeah, RV, I am sure that you do know who I am. It is clear from your past threats that you fit the stalker profile. You blame other people when your own posts make you look like a dimwit - you can't help it, it is who you are. Maybe you should worry more about your own career and less about mine.

[TheRealThing]

Wow...that is saying something right there.

That the best you can do? If you think you can refute my post, let's see what you've got.

[TheRealVille]

Yeah, RV, I am sure that you do know who I am. It is clear from your past threats that you fit the stalker profile. You blame other people when your own posts make you look like a dimwit - you can't help it, it is who you are. Maybe you should worry more about your own career and less about mine.

Are you not going to address the questions, or the study? Just say so.

[Hoot Gibson]

Are you not going to address the questions, or the study? Just say so.

There's nothing there to address. Nobody has claimed that mining coal has no impact on the environment but the study, or the executive summary or whatever you want to call what you post gives no statistics. At a minimum, the article should have stated what the allowable allowance is for selenium (I believe that it is 5 parts per billion, but maybe Old School can confirm that number), how much selenium was measured upstream, and what the readings were downstream. Stating the the measurements upstream were in compliance with the regulations and the measurements taken downstream begs the question of how much was contributed by the mining operation and how much originated from other sources upstream or occurs naturally.

BTW, you posted the article without comment, which you often do, and as often is the case, criticized me for not commenting on the very article on which you declined to comment. That's not how threads like this are supposed to work. Tell us what you think of the information that you posted.

[TheRealVille]

There's nothing there to address. Nobody has claimed that mining coal has no impact on the environment but the study, or the executive summary or whatever you want to call what you post gives no statistics. At a minimum, the article should have stated what the allowable allowance is for selenium (I believe that it is 5 parts per billion, but maybe Old School can confirm that number), how much selenium was measured upstream, and what the readings were downstream. Stating the the measurements upstream were in compliance with the regulations and the measurements taken downstream begs the question of how much was contributed by the mining operation and how much originated from other sources upstream or occurs naturally.

BTW, you posted the article without comment, which you often do, and as often is the case, criticized me for not commenting on the very article on which you declined to comment. That's not how threads like this are supposed to work. Tell us what you think of the information that you posted.

Go to bed "mining engineer". :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

Go to bed "mining engineer". :biglmao:

Just what I thought. You are too lazy to read and comment on your own post. Par for the course.

[RunItUpTheGut]

On a lighter note, away from the bickering, ive heard since the deal with India, Arch Coal, which goes along with ICG are starting to pick back up some of the people they laid off.

[TheRealVille]

The study is short on facts. It has a lot in common with you, RV. The only thing that you are not short on is personal attacks. You have been asked for numbers to support your claims and you have come up empty. Regardless of what thread you choose to participate in, you post without thinking and then when you are called out for your ignorance, you respond with attacks.

Not long ago, you were arguing that there were plenty of jobs available in the coal industry because you heard a company advertising on the radio for miners. Never mind the thousands of miners who have lost their jobs thanks to Obama. As long as one company is hiring a few miners, the industry is doing just fine in your world. When the last mine closes and you find yourself living in an area surrounded by impoverished neighbors, when you ask yourself how such a thing could happen, take a good look in the mirror.

Go ahead, RV. Tell us how you are not an Obama supporter, how you are not an atheist or an agnostic, and how you are not anti-coal. You have no credibility. People like you who actively support looters like Obama are doing great damage to this country.

I posted a link to a news article, not the study. If you want to view the numbers in the study, it is at this link. There are plenty of numbers there. Of course, you saw the link the same as I did.
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/pnas%20201112381.pdf

[Hoot Gibson]

I posted a link to a news article, not the study. If you want to view the numbers in the study, it is at this link. There are plenty of numbers there. Of course, you saw the link the same as I did.
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/pnas%20201112381.pdf

That's right, you posted an article that contained very little in the way of specifics but you called it a "study" and demanded that I comment on the "study," even though you had not done so. When you read the study and provide your own analysis, then I might do the same - or maybe not.

[TheRealVille]

That's right, you posted an article that contained very little in the way of specifics but you called it a "study" and demanded that I comment on the "study," even though you had not done so. When you read the study and provide your own analysis, then I might do the same - or maybe not.

Your skirt is showing Hoot. Twist all you want, people can see. I absolutely didn't call the article a study. I even named the Duke study.

[TheRealVille]

The study is short on facts. It has a lot in common with you, RV. The only thing that you are not short on is personal attacks. You have been asked for numbers to support your claims and you have come up empty. Regardless of what thread you choose to participate in, you post without thinking and then when you are called out for your ignorance, you respond with attacks.

Not long ago, you were arguing that there were plenty of jobs available in the coal industry because you heard a company advertising on the radio for miners. Never mind the thousands of miners who have lost their jobs thanks to Obama. As long as one company is hiring a few miners, the industry is doing just fine in your world. When the last mine closes and you find yourself living in an area surrounded by impoverished neighbors, when you ask yourself how such a thing could happen, take a good look in the mirror.

Go ahead, RV. Tell us how you are not an Obama supporter, how you are not an atheist or an agnostic, and how you are not anti-coal. You have no credibility. People like you who actively support looters like Obama are doing great damage to this country.

The news article might be short on facts, but the Duke study isn't.

[Hoot Gibson]

Your skirt is showing Hoot. Twist all you want, people can see. I absolutely didn't call the article a study. I even named the Duke study.

Are you simply mistaken or just making another demonstrably false statement? Like I have often said, you don't even read the stuff that you post here.

If you don't agree with the study, call Duke. If you have evidence contrary to the study, that the minerals aren't really in the streams, feel free to post it. I won't take your "opinion" that's its mined clean. The stream studies say otherwise. You "busted" out of the mining scene years ago, how do you come to your current knowledge?

[TheRealVille]

Are you simply mistaken or just making another demonstrably false statement? Like I have often said, you don't even read the stuff that you post here.

You didn't highlight the "call Duke" part. I merely posted an article that talked about the study. Don't show the idiot, and kid, that you are are, Hoot. It's unbecoming.

[Hoot Gibson]

You didn't highlight the "call Duke" part.

You did not deny using the word "Duke."

[TheRealVille]

You did not deny using the word "Duke."

What the hell are you even talking about? I said "if you don't agree with the study, call Duke. Are you really this big of an idiot, or just trying to twist?

[Hoot Gibson]

What the hell are you even talking about? I said "if you don't agree with the study, call Duke. Are you really this big of an idiot, or just trying to twist?

I know the difference between a poorly written article penned by a journalist and a scientific study. Apparently you do not. Get back to me when you read the study that you demanded that I comment on. nicker:

[Old School]

There's nothing there to address. Nobody has claimed that mining coal has no impact on the environment but the study, or the executive summary or whatever you want to call what you post gives no statistics. At a minimum, the article should have stated what the allowable allowance is for selenium (I believe that it is 5 parts per billion, but maybe Old School can confirm that number), how much selenium was measured upstream, and what the readings were downstream. Stating the the measurements upstream were in compliance with the regulations and the measurements taken downstream begs the question of how much was contributed by the mining operation and how much originated from other sources upstream or occurs naturally.

BTW, you posted the article without comment, which you often do, and as often is the case, criticized me for not commenting on the very article on which you declined to comment. That's not how threads like this are supposed to work. Tell us what you think of the information that you posted.

Everyone that I know of has limits of 6 parts per billion. Each outlet is tested bi-monthly and if the average of the two test are over 6 parts per billion then you written a violation for each day in that month.